A632.8.3.RB - Reflections on the Cynefin Framework

Create a reflection blog based on critically thinking about how the Cynefin Framework can benefit your decision-making. Consider the chart on page 7 of the HBR article A Leader's Framework for Decision Making and discuss decision-making in multiple contexts; include two specific examples of decisions in multiple contexts that you have made. Detail the considerations from the various contexts that influenced your decision.  Critically assess the Cynefin Framework and describe 5 ways it can provide an improved context for decision making.

Cynefin means "habitat or place" along with a place of actual belongings: cultural, religious, geographic, tribal etc; complexity model for a complex system; many paths influence who you are but never know fully who you are. The model emerges from data in social process. At the center (heart) of the model is "disorder" and is the space of not knowing what space you are actually in and need be in. Most people and organizations are in a disorder state assessing a problem scenario based on a preference for action, i.e., asking the question which knowledge expert should we use for the four categories.

There are three basic systems: ordered, complex and chaotic. Add a new center (heart) category called disorder. Disorder is the space of not knowing what space you are in, i.e., where we organizations are most of the time. Then divide disorder into two categories: simple and complicated. Manage in complex and complicated categories and only move a small amount of material into simple because it is highly vulnerable to rapid and accelerated change.

A Categorization model is a standard management consulting recommendation 2x2 quadrant matrix identifying two variables with high and low categories. This model is good for exploitation, however, poor for exploration and change. Also, this approach is taught and emphasized in most MBA programs and business schools. The biggest weakness and downfall is the inability to see differences until it is too late and then will be locked out. The model precedes the data.

The Cynefin model is a sensemaking model and the data precedes the model. Cynefin is also a decision making framework that recognizes the causal differences that exist between system types. It is also fast and easy way to move flip from systems and use the appropriate method for the appropriate domain. It is an ordered system that is simple, predictable and determined in advance. Manage in complex and complicated categories and only move a small amount of material into simple because it is highly vulnerable to rapid and accelerated change. Use a divergent approach depending on what space you're in. Think and analyze differently instead of "one size fits all" paradigm which is usually taught and emphasized in management theory.

From a critical thinking perspective, beware of complacency, biases and traps. Complacency includes "comfort zones," not thinking outside the box, past successes along with paradigms and framing. Leaders know how to identify with each Cynefin context in addition to changing behavior actions to match. Depending on what space you are in, think analyze differently instead of "one size fits all" which is emphasized in management theory and business schools. 

The Simple category includes bureaucratic and failure of the process (problem). It is fact-based management with knowns, fact-based management and clear cause-and-effect. The leader's job is to use best practices and ensure processes are in place. Danger signals are complacency and comfort zones.

The Complicated category uses good practices from knowledge experts analysis. There is usually more than one right answer. It is also fact and data driven. The leader's job is to listen to multiple (sometimes conflicting) recommendations and make a decision. Danger signals include getting bogged down by paralysis-by-analysis.

The Complex category includes emergent best practices with many competing ideas. There is a need for creative and innovative approaches. For example, politicians and military battlefield commanders get groups of the right people together to solve problems generating a right solution with path forward. The leader's job is to create environments and experiments that allow patterns to emerge and use methods that can help generate ideas. Danger signals are potentially falling back into command-and-control and looking for data facts instead of solutions.

The Chaotic category is characterized by high turbulence, tension, unknowns and no clear cause-and-effect. The leader's job is to look for what works instead of seeking the right answers and take immediate action to reestablish control of the situation. Danger signals are using command-and-control longer than needed and missed opportunities for innovation.  

For my personal style, I usually operate in the Complicated and Complex and only move a small amount of material down into the Simple and Chaotic categories. This is because my professional role responsibility as a kaizen leader and black belt includes six sigma lean manufacturing processes with team, process, ideas and facts data driven focus. This includes best practices, emergent, novel, new, unique, different and simulations.  

                       

References:                                                                                                    

Snowden, David J. and Boone, Mary E. (November 2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.    

 

What is the Cynefin Framework (2016). Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University - Worldwide. 

A632.7.4.RB-Collaborative Decision-Making

Reflect on the role of collaboration and getting to resolution in the process of decision-making. Rarely, if ever, do our decisions affect only ourselves. Consider the importance of getting other stakeholders involved; how can they help you make a better decision for all?  Detail a specific situation where you are faced with the decision, describe the process you went through and the outcome you were seeking. Identify 5 ways stakeholder involvement can help you make better decisions.  Did you achieve your objective?  Looking back at the decision you made and its consequence, was there anyone else that would have added value to the process? Identify 3 ways you may use this learning experience to make better decisions in the future?

Boeing uses a team based approach to collaboration known as "Working Together." It is a story about team building "Working Together" management strategy and the revolutionary design build teams (DBT's) that were created, empowered and engaged originally for the new 777 Program vision. The end result was that "working together" worked. It is a powerful concept and proved that "none of us is as smart as all of us." To survive in the 21st century there is a motto: "Nothing endures but change." Become adaptable and flexible or else we will not be in business (Boeing, 2016).

Prior to this strategy, the years rolled by and Boeing grew bigger. Bureaucracy and red tape crept in. Functional silos grew larger with little horizontal integration. Work groups and teams became isolated. The process became serial with the domino snowball effect. And people did only their piece of the job and handed it over without sharing knowledge and resources. Conflicts arose impacting productivity and quality. This was not lean and efficient.

Alan Mulally was one of the two 777 project leaders and developed created the "Working Together" philosophy and foundation. He later left Boeing (after being passed over on CEO position to Jim McNerney from 3M) to run Ford Motor Company and lead one of the most remarkable revolutionary turnarounds in the auto industry. Mulally believed in "simplicity" amid "complexity, chaos and confusion" and kept lego blocks and Fisher Price toys in his office to remind him and the DBT's of the importance of ease of assembly. It worked! Mulally retired from Ford and is currently a board director for Google. He was under consideration for the top job at Microsoft prior to the appointment of Satya Nadella.

Mulally summarized the "working together" philosophy at both Boeing and Ford, "It goes back to where Boeing started," "the power of coming together around a compelling vision of where the organization is going to go...and then coming together around a strategy to achieve which includes everybody, where everybody benefits, and then knowing what the status is and taking action." In a survey by Aviation Week and Space Technology, Boeing was rated the top choice among upper-tier workers, in what the magazine called "professional development/opportunity." (Wilhelm, Oct 15, 2014)    

Some of the "Mulallyisms" and words of advice:

• Seek to understand, before you seek to be understood.
• Hold two thoughts: What is the reality, and what do we want to create.
• Put people first – include everybody.
• Have a compelling vision, a comprehensive strategy and implement relentlessly.
• Trust the process.
• Facts and data set you free.
• Have fun.                                                                                                                 (Wilhelm, Oct 15, 2014)    

Warren Bennis argues and documents in his collaboration research masterpiece Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration of "THE END OF THE GREAT MAN" that "None of us is as smart as all of us." The myth of the triumphant individual is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. Whether it is John Wayne "The Duke," midnight rider Paul Revere or basketball's Michael Jordan in the 1990s, we are a nation enamored of heroes--rugged self-starters who meet challenges and overcome adversity. Our contemporary views of leadership are entwined with our notions of heroism, so much so that the distinction between "leader" and "hero" (or "celebrity," for that matter) often becomes blurred. In our society, leadership is too often seen as an inherently individual phenomenon (Bennis and Biederman, 1997).

And yet we all know that cooperation and collaboration grow more important every day. A shrinking world in which technological and political complexity along with the global economy increase at an accelerating rate offers fewer and fewer arenas in which individual action suffices. Recognizing this, we talk more and more about the need for teamwork, citing the Japanese approach to management, e.g., the Toyota Production System (TPS), as a call for a new model of effective action. Yet despite the rhetoric of collaboration, we continue to advocate it in a culture in which people strive to distinguish themselves as individuals. We continue to live in a by-line culture where recognition and status are according to individuals, not groups (Bennis and Biederman, 1997).   

The "working together" philosophy at Boeing has since been renamed "winning together" and has refined the team process to employee involvement teams (EIT's) for production, quality, supply chain and engineering. I am the "captain" of our high-performance industrial engineering team. We use conflict and resolution as an opportunity to develop, grow, mature and generate new ideas for continuous improvement. We include stakeholders including customers (internal and external) into our process for strategic alignment, e.g., vision, charter, operating guidelines principles, daily operations, customer survey feedback and goals. For example, for each customer survey, we review the results with the customer. There are usually several conflicts including roles responsibilities. To create resolution, we have a meeting to ensure strategy and vision are in alignment. For any gaps, we develop an action plan (agreements) with follow-up coordination meetings. This ensures a closed-loop communication process from conflict to resolution. This process is not perfect, however, our team is a model for other lower stage teams to follow because it works. We mentor and coach other teams in this too which enhances collaboration (Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership Model) with emphasis on engagement.                                                               

References:                                                                                                    

Bennis, Warren and Biederman, Patricia Ward (1997). Organizing Genius: The Secrets of Creative Collaboration. New York: Basic Books (Perseus Books Group).                 

Boeing (2016). Retrieved http://www.boeing.com/

Levine, Stuart (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Wilhelm, Steve (Oct 15, 2014). 'Working together:' Alan Mulally recalls Boeing, Ford in wide-ranging talk. Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle). Retrieved

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2014/10/15/did-alan-mulally-just-give-human-relations-advice.html

A632.6.3.RB - The High Cost of Conflict

Reflect on a personal or business situation in which the cost of conflict was significantly greater than you would've preferred. Analyze the situation in relation to Stewart Levine's 10 principles of new thinking (p. 46). How would this have changed the situation? Could it have reduced the cost of conflict? What lessons did you learn from this exercise?

The cost of conflict includes direct costs, productivity costs (including quality and safety), continuity costs and emotional costs. For example, direct costs can include using neutral mediators for disagreements with attorneys and judicial system (courts etc). To add fuel to the fire, unfortunately there are many money hungry attorneys and legal firms who play with and use the existing system for greed and their own advantage. An example of productivity cost is the amount of money (cost in dollars or labor hours) an organization loses because of a scenario situation which has impacted production. An employee could be sick and not show up for work. This could require medical attention too which further increases the cost. An employee could be working at a slower rate because of an emotional issue too. Emotional intelligence (EI), i.e., emotional well being is attitude, awareness, understanding and control of emotions as defined researched from Daniel Goleman. Relationships can also be impacted damaged as a result of conflict and the emotional baggage we carry with us causes pain. Sometimes can never let go and it becomes embedded in us. Workers compensation, disability and medical leaves of absence can also impact costs. Continuity costs the way a scenario situation impacts the operating rhythm and team dynamics. For example, the Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership model identifies several team stages, e.g., collaboration and high-performance. Areas that could be impacted include communication, morale, cohesiveness and trust. Team members will look for another job opportunity. One bad apple on a team can be the downfall. Many organizations have employee assistance programs too to get help assistance for employees.  

An example in which the cost of conflict was significantly greater than I would have preferred was one that resulted in a damaged relationship along with emotional scars. A few years ago, I attended a safety fair which included displays of safety projects, processes, exhibits, displays and also outside vendors suppliers. In addition, there were refreshments and giveaways including t-shirts and hats. I was reviewing the safety projects in one of the tents. These were displayed on tri-fold poster boards. As I was proceeding through the line and displays, I was shocked when I saw part of one of my projects being used by another person. I took a closer look and found that some of my work project was included on the display. I knew the person and questioned him about his project and the data collection. His response was that he had created a separate project, however, used part of my project as the foundation. And he was the official project lead too. Unfortunately, my name was not included on the display. Wow! What an experience. So after a brief discussion, I kept walking and then proceeded to talk with several people (including my manager) about this scenario. The feedback to me was to work it out with the other person.

My emotional state was impacted significantly as I could not believe this had happened. I slept on it that night and the net day went into work early to get with the other person. He admitted he should have been more open and candid about what he was doing including recognition, collaboration and creating partnerships. However, I believe there was a hidden agenda of him trying to take all the credit for the project along with making himself look good in front of leadership. As far as trust, respect and understanding, this situation still stays in my mind from this experience. And yes, I reviewed this with my manager etc for follow-up and documentation too. The good thing is that I was in control of my emotional intelligence and this did not impact my overall performance and working together with others on projects. The end result is that I have many great experiences. However, for long term collaborations and learning, this conflict scenario example can impact a relationship, team and organization.

References

Levine, Stuart (2009). Getting to resolution: Turning conflict into collaboration (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

A632.5.5.RB - Protected Values in Decision Making

Reflect on the concept map that you created in the previous exercise and consider the Dan Gilbert video from module one. Discuss your protected values and how far you are willing to go to support those values. Explore the level of  protection associated with each of your major values identified in the concept map and detail  your thoughts on each. Finally, discuss how those protected values would influence your decision-making.

I have the opportunity to have a career at Boeing and have been here for almost 19 years now too. No, actually I think I am very fortunate and maybe even spoiled! Boeing is a company and team of amazing people working in one of the most exciting industries in the world. When you consider our many accomplishments -- from designing and building the earliest biplanes to creating and supporting today's supersonic aircraft and spacecraft -- you might think we would be content with how far we've come. But a company of our size and scope doesn't succeed by resting on its laurels; we are constantly re-examining our capabilities and processes to ensure that our company is as strong and vital as our heritage. In fact, our culture mirrors the heritage of aviation itself, built on a foundation of creativity, innovation, aspiration and imagination. Values play a huge part in Boeing. Not once in awhile or every so often but every day. They are the foundation of the vision and embedded in the culture with choices and decision-making. All employees are expected to be an ambassador. The seven values include: integrity, quality, safety, diversity and inclusion, trust and respect, corporate citizenship and stakeholder success (Boeing, 2016).

Integrity includes character, ethical standards and taking personal responsibility and accountability for our behavior actions. Quality includes first-time quality and continuous improvement in all that we do to meet or exceed the standards of excellence stakeholders expect of us. Safety is we value human life and health above all else and take action accordingly to maintain the safety of our workplaces, products and services. Diversity is the skills, strengths and perspectives of our diverse team. Trust and respect is a culture of openness and inclusion in which everyone is treated fairly and where everyone has an opportunity to contribute. Corporate citizenship is being a responsible partner, neighbor and citizen to the diverse communities and customers we serve. We promote the health and wellbeing of Boeing people, their families and our communities. We protect the environment. We volunteer and financially support education and other worthy causes. Stakeholder success includes operating profitably and with integrity, we provide customers with best-value innovation and a competitive edge in their own markets; enable employees to work in a safe, ethical environment, with a highly attractive and competitive mix of pay and benefits, and the ability to further share in the company's success; reward investors with increasing shareholder value; conduct business lawfully and ethically with our suppliers; and help to strengthen communities around the world (Boeing, 2016).

For example, the three models I included on the concept map were SWOT, BCG and Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership (Krogerus and Tschappeler, 2008). These models are all used by Boeing. SWOT is used for mergers and acquisitions, e.g., McDonnell Douglas, Rockwell International and Hughes Aircraft Company (1997). BCG is used for stakeholders to summarize Boeing divisions along with product mixes and lines in addition to strategy and tactics. The Hersey-Blanchard Situational Leadership model is used for self-directed/high-performance teams. The seven values are all applicable for each model. There is no compromise (or exceptions) in applying the seven values for choices and decision-making. That's what makes Boeing great and an exceptional organization including celebrating the 100 year anniversary this year (1916-2016).

  

The Boeing vision states "People working together as a global enterprise for aerospace industry leadership." (Boeing, 2016)

References

Boeing (2016). Retrieved http://www.boeing.com/

Hoch, Stephen J., and Kunreuther, Howard C. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

      Krogerus, Mikael and Tschappeler (2008). The Decision Book: 50 Models for Strategic Thinking. New York, NY: W.W. Norton Company.